Powerscore said it's less likely to see a LG experimental because of the upcoming changes to the section. Anecdotal evidence: I've taken 2 LSATs, Nov and January, and I got experimental RC both times.
But generally I think, besides the possibility of LG exp being less likely due to overhaul, LR and RC have equal chance.
You cannot attack premises in weaken questions. You are attacking the relationship between premise and conclusion.
The premise stated that two opposing beliefs can be considered medieval epistemology - that's why D is wrong plain and simple. There's no relationship to attack here, it's stated as a fact of the matter.
How are we supposed to distinguish that Bargaining Unit 17 is APART of a government union and that the 'government union' is not a subset of the Bargaining Unit 17? Adding that one useless sentence 'government union' is what put this question at #25.
It's not difficult because the logic is hard, it's difficult because they're intentionally trying to trick you into thinking 'government union' is a subset. Which then makes all the answers wrong. So annoying.
@ said:
Did anyone have a LR experimental? One of my LR sections had a question about early humans wearing clothes made out of animal skin.
There are multiple real LR sections floating around. But mine (I had only 1 LR) was 25 questions and had questions about genetics (unpigmented hair gene passed down between male relatives) and an old culture that used dice which opposite sides added up to 7. If you had those questions, that LR was real. Unfortunately don't remember much else from my LR.
@ said:
@ said:
That final logic game :')
Did anyone else have the Legally Blond passage? Was super surprised when I saw that as a topic.
@ said:
@ said:
That final logic game :')
Did anyone else have the Legally Blond passage? Was super surprised when I saw that as a topic.
i got the same article
Did either of you have RC as an experimental? I had this passage, but I also had two RC sections so I don't know if it was "real" or not.
I had double RC. According to other test takers over on Reddit, the passage that had legally blond/Chaucer/jellyfish/Argentina vs. Uruguay was in fact experimental. My real RC was Malthus (france overpopulation), Intangible assets (brand names), architechts in practice vs. in school, and motion sickness in space. People who had only 1 RC had this section, so it's real.
Bummed out, because I know I did better on the experimental than I did on the real one :')
You know LSAC writers have screwed your brain up when the first thing you think when you read the word 'urban' in the stimulus is, "Oh, so the AC is going to say something stupid but be correct due to this one random word. Better pay attention to urban vs. rural."
Thank you PT 85 and 86 for destroying my brain and ruining my life. At least I got this question correct :')
@ said:
Really thankful that they are bringing awareness to the issues with ProctorU because I struggled terribly and my scores were terrible because of my issues with ProctorU the first two times and there wasn't a way to report it at first, now it's at your own risk, and I really hope that they evaluate what they are paying for with ProctorU and the service they are actually receiving. On an already stressful day, this was extremely infuriating to deal with.
My sessions were LG-LR-RC-LR, and I found them to be fairly equal in difficulty. I honestly don't remember specific questions as much as I wish I did; it all seems to blend together some times. I did struggle with time and am concerned that I will receive a lower score as a result, but I feel like this was the first time I had a good experience with ProctorU.
I had the second set of LG games that they speak about in the PS podcast and ran out of time for the double circular game at the end. Worried about that one and struggled some with the Fiction/Non-Fiction questions. I wish that if they are planning to get rid of a section that they would place less numerical value on that section as they fade it out.
I had the second set of RC questions that they spoke about, I struggled with time towards the end and those passages were pretty difficult so I am worried about that section as well. I agree, it was an interesting set of passages but if you had time to read them and take them in, not amidst the timed LSAT. I'm thankful that I had two LR sections, both were equally hard and weren't too bad.
I had the exact same experience as you, except mine was LR-RC-LG-RC. I felt like the RC (real one, the one you got) was really easy until the Kafka passage. Then I was just completely lost. It truly felt as if they were talking in circles on that passage and even though I had a ton of time when I got to it, I'm fairly certain I didn't do well on it.
@ said:
@ said:
Hey guys I had two RC sections, one had an article about the Big Bang did anyone get that as well?
I had LG - LR - LR- RC
The RC had the Big Bang article so it was the real one.
Does anyone know which LR was real?
PODCAST THAT CONFIRMS REAL SECTIONS + CURVE:
That final logic game :')
Did anyone else have the Legally Blond passage? Was super surprised when I saw that as a topic.
My school allows you to submit your application while you have an impending score release, they simply put your application on hold in the meantime. Is there any benefit to this? As in - will I be further in the que when the un-hold my application?
What do you mean by necessary 14 days off? As in - it's the norm not to study until score release?
Unless you feel burnt out or otherwise have a reason to (work, school, etc.) I would continue studying. I took January and literally studied the next day after the test. I didn't take a break between January and score release. Also sat for February.
@ said:
@ said:
LR-RC-LG-RC.
That was unnecessarily difficult for literally no reason.
The set up or the test as whole?
Test.
That was unnecessarily difficult for literally no reason.
Just another example of terrible 'correct' AC in pt 80's.
"Nobel prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists' contributions to their discipline."
But they aren't. All we know is that SOMETIMES people who DESERVE to get the awards do NOT get the awards. But what about the people who DO get the awards? We know NOTHING about them.
So the BROAD statement that 'Nobel prizes are INACCURATE indicators of a scientist's contribution' can't be 100% proven here. It doesn't say 'sometimes' inaccurate it says they ARE.
On every other LSAT question in existence we are supposed to assume this means always - all - every one of them: unless it says some, most, etc. But on this one we're randomly supposed to assume it's the ONE time 'x is b' doesn't mean x is always b, but is sometimes b? Sure LSAT writers. Sure.
that feeling when the LSAT writers screw you over so many times with nonsensical correct ACs that you dismiss C as a trap answer choice for being too straight forward :')
3/3 if the AC has the word 'untenable' it is the correct answer. They love using tenable/untenable in answer choices to confuse people and make that the right AC.
-0 on this, but definitely an '80's' PT. Many times NONE of the answers really felt 100% correct, just more correct than other answers. #14 is a good example. I was between E and D, but E is directly contradicted by the passage. The experiment said nothing about inferring OTHER'S thoughts at all.
In fact, the 'inferring other people's thoughts' is pretty much thrown in the passage to get you to pick trap answers, because the overall message of the passage has nothing to do with inferring other people's thoughts at all. It's only used as a comparison for the main topic: inferring your own thoughts.
A skill you have to develop on the 80+ PTs is to be able to distinguish between the answer you WANT to pick and the answer the LSAT writers clearly want you to pick. Many times they will not be the same. I'm still not perfect at this - but my score has drastically improved by realizing that sometimes you have to just go with their logic, even when you don't agree with it.
I see now why D is technically the best answer but it's not addressed in the video that the stimulus says:
Patients sign form ACCEPTING risk -> THEREFORE, ethicists who say patients RESENT being given ineffective medicine are doubtful.
Accepting does NOT equal 'not resenting' something. Resenting something is feeling bitterness about something. You can ACCEPT something and, at the same time, be RESENTFUL. That was the whole issue with the argument - those things cannot be conflated.
But the correct AC says that they 'changed' their attitude. This implies accepting and non-resentful can be conflated. They WERE accepting but now they ARE resentful. Why can't they still ACCEPT that they were given ineffective medicine but RESENT it as well?
It's obviously still the best AC. But I think the fact that it is not a 100% perfect choice should be addressed.
LSAT really did us dirty putting an actual freaking math question on the LSAT...
Got this right but changed it on BR because I thought, "Wait... just because they are of Indian ethnicity, that doesn't mean they eat Indian curry. Also... what if everyone else eats India curry, too?"
But LSAT straight up just told us we HAVE TO assume Indians eat Indian curry. Wow. This is simply wrong. Indians do not have to eat Indian curry, so Indian curry having more turmeric is irrelevant to this question.
this question is pure wordplay and I got got.
I found highlighting/underlining a complete waste of time for me - but I'm just one data point. Thought I'd chime in, though, because my score significantly improved when I stopped but I rarely see anyone else talk about how underlining/highlighting might not be the best strat for everyone.
I went from between a -8 and -11 average on RC to between -0 and -4 after I stopped highlighting. Obviously highlighting wasn't the only reason for the jump, but I think it was a significant one. For me, I found reading the paragraph then stopping for a few seconds to summarize in my head what I read and the key points was more effective. Plus, you save a ton of time if you can cement key points in your head rather than having to look back to your highlights.
I see you said you have a hard time staying engaged - have you tried to stop after every paragraph to summarize in your head? Highlighting may be the correct method for you still! Just putting my 2 cents in.
I immediately crossed out E because I had no clue what it was saying then spent 5 minutes staring at this question :') Literally why LSAC.
k but cultural trends /=/ fashion. Love when LSAT conflates terms then punishes us if we do the same on different questions :)
ima just take the L cause there's a 0% chance I'll ever understand a question like this lol
On one question the LSAT writers will punish us for conflating two terms that are not synonymous. On another, they'll punish us for NOT conflating two terms that are not synonymous. It's bullcrap.
Best Selling /=/ Large Readership. Please look at any 'New York Times Best Seller' list. What if 1 person buys 1 million copies? That's a best seller, but without large readership.
Appeals to Critics /=/ Critically Acclaimed. Just because it CAN appeal to a critic doesn't mean 'appealing' is a sufficient condition to produce 'critical acclaim'.